Red Alert

Posts Tagged ‘rodney hide’

Key Backs Hide, But Not Even Hide is Backing Hide

Posted by Grant Robertson on September 18th, 2010

Key Backs Hide is the headline of the story on the NZ Herald website.

Prime Minister John Key says ACT leader Rodney Hide has shown good judgment and has his full support following the resignation of disgraced MP David Garrett from the party.

The ridiculous thing about that statement is that not even Rodney Hide thinks he has shown good judgement here. He said as much at his press conference. The reality is that Rodney is the person who decided that it was ok for Garrett to be the Sensible Sentencing Trust’s person in the ACT Caucus despite knowing of his conviction and his bizarre and creepy plot. Rodney was the one who was happy for it not to become public. Rodney was the one who made him law and order spokesperson. Good judgement is in short supply in this case.

Rodney Hide and ACT’s days are numbered. John Key knows that, but he needs Hide to keep his government going. Its a messy place to be.


Garrett has to go from Parliament

Posted by Chris Hipkins on September 17th, 2010

The last time an ACT MP left the party to become and independent they went all the way to the Supreme Court to have her thrown out of Parliament. That was just after Rodney Hide became Leader of the party. What did he have to say about it at the time? Here’s a few selected quotes:

“…taxpayers must continue to foot the bill for a non-functioning MP”.

“Standing up for your principles is never cheap, but the country can be assured that ACT does put its principles first.”

“At the last election the people of New Zealand voted for nine ACT Members of Parliament. It was never right that for some time now the people of New Zealand have only been represented by eight ACT MPs. Fair proportionality is a key aspect to the success of MMP and today the wrongs have been put right. Justice has been delivered. The ACT Party will now be more fairly represented and New Zealand will be better served. I believe the reputation of Parliament will be enhanced.”

So will Rodney keep sticking by those principles and insist that David Garrett resign from Parliament now that he has quit the ACT Party? If he’s going to have any credibility at all (and even then it will only be a sliver) he has no choice but to tell Garrett to go completely.


Public want Hide and Garrett to go

Posted by Chris Hipkins on September 17th, 2010

Rodney Hide has rushed home a day early to deal with the fallout from David Garrett’s bizarre admission that he stole the identity of a dead child to get a fake passport. But it seems it might be too little, too late for both Garrett and Hide, and probably the ACT party.

A poll on Stuff this morning reveals that 48% of respondents think both Garrett and Hide should go. Another 28% think just Garrett should be dumped. Only 11% think nothing should happen. The credibility of both men, and their entire party, is now in tatters. Hide knew about all of this before Garrett even became an MP. What grounds does he have to sack him now if he knew all along? He can’t exactly say he was happy for Garrett to keep his job as long as he didn’t get caught.

There are some wider questions for the Prime Minister too. Does John Key still have confidence in Rodney Hide, given Hide knew about this all along and didn’t think to tell him? When did Key first find out, and what did he do about it? Key promised higher standards for his ministry. Has he got the guts to cut Hide adrift and keep that promise? He doesn’t need Hide’s votes, he still has a majority with the Maori Party. ACT are now practically irrelevant. The real focus should now be on what the PM does.


Let them eat cake

Posted by Phil Twyford on September 9th, 2010

I enjoy a regular correspondence with Rodney Hide’s Auckland Transition Agency each letter prefaced with the phrase “Under the Official Information Act…”.  The ATA is the special group of public servants whose job it is to set up the Auckland super city.  I’ve been critical of their secretive ways but when they do release information they do it in style.

And now their secret is out. The Aucklander has revealed the ATA is writing its letters on replica goatskin parchment which costs $118 for a ream of 500 sheets  – up to 17 times the cost of normal paper.

Why not real goatskin parchment? That’s what I want to know. Tight-wads!

According to The Aucklander the ATA’s paper is Grecian tan rather than shades such as marble white or faint Corinthian green.

I am surprised they don’t go the whole hog and hand deliver their letters on a gold cushion with tassels.

As for the Auckland ratepayers, a majority of whom believe their rates will go up under the super city, I am sure Lord Hide of Epsom would happily let them eat cake.


Minister for school privatisation

Posted by Phil Twyford on September 8th, 2010

I see Rodney Hide’s new delegations as associate education minister include responsibility for public private partnerships in schools.

Is this another instance of the Nats using Hide to front stuff they would like to do but don’t have the cojones for? And Key giving Hide the opportunity to play to his right wing base?

For a while there it looked like that strategy might work with the super city.  When the public reacted to unpopular decisions Key could just shrug and say “well, that’s Rodney”. But things got so out of control, and Hide’s brand so damaged, that his low standing with the public and close association with the super city has done a great deal to tarnish the whole project.

I wonder how successful he will be at convincing the public that PPPs in schools are a good idea.


Not good enough Mr Hide

Posted by Grant Robertson on September 3rd, 2010

(This post is in part by way of explanation to passengers on board Flight NZ410 from Wellington to Auckland this morning, some of whom might have witnessed a somewhat odd exchange between me and Rodney Hide.)

Since Heather Roy was dumped as Minister responsible for special education I have been trying to find out what is happening with the review of Special Education.  Heather had said publicly that it was due out in July or August, and my understanding was that it was before Cabinet the very week she was dumped.  I have put in written questions asking for information about the review which were due for reply on the 26th of August but I have not had a response.

So this morning when I was on a plane to Auckland to visit, among other things, a couple of special schools, it was timely to see Rodney Hide get on the plane.  As we stood up to disembark I asked if Rodney was indeed taking on the special education portfolio (he confirmed he was) and when the review was to be released.  He responded by saying “when the government is ready.”  Before I could go any further he said we could not expect cooperation from him on the review due to his issues about Labour’s approach on the super city. I said I was not asking about the Super City and that the review was important to a large number of parents, schools and students.

What followed was a tirade from Rodney as we walked up the air bridge about the Super City and related issues. I kept saying that I was interested in the review as many others are, and that Rodney really needed to be able to seperate out his portfolio issues.   As he stopped and I walked on his tirade continued.

I would not normally report on an exchange like this,  but his approach is not good enough.  The whole special education community is waiting for the review to be released. As I was told today on my visits, it is holding up planning and development in schools.  Parents and students involved in special education deal with enough stress and pressure as it is. They deserve far better than a Minister who can not deal with his anger about a completely unrelated issue.


Hide hoses down Auckland water fears

Posted by Phil Twyford on August 31st, 2010

Local Government Minister Rodney Hide has intervened in the Auckland mayoral and council elections with a carefully contrived announcement on water rates.

You would think water rates would be decided and announced by the new Auckland Council. The election is, after all, only six weeks away. And the water company, is after all, owned  by the Council.

But no, Mr Hide yesterday trumpeted a new water rate that will see all Auckland houses pay the same tariff of $1.30 per 1000 litres of water.

Asked why he was announcing it now, he replied because Aucklanders have been “anxious about water” charges.

Why have they been anxious about water charges? Because the Government wants to roll out volumetric or user pays pricing for waste-water expected to result in hefty increases for most Aucklanders. And because the centre-right Citizens and Ratepayers ticket has the same policy. And the C&R mayoral candidate Mr Banks has been taking heat on this issue.

Mr Hide was happy to announce the new rate on water piped to the home, but he was keeping quiet on the new rate for waste water which is the one that is likely to go up significantly if it gets the full user-pays treatment. If he was going to announce one I don’t see why he couldn’t have announced both, because Watercare has had a full year to do the calculations on both.

The farsighted Mr Hide has legislated that waste water charges, and general rates, won’t be going up until mid-2012 which just happens to be after the mayoral and council elections, and after next year’s general election.

By the time the new waste water and general rates kick in, the Auckland Council will have been in place for 18 months and Mr Hide will be able to wash his hands of any responsibility. He is hoping the Council will have to carry the can for the structures and budgets he put in place 18 months before.

If in 2012 the waste water charges and general rates do go up, as most Aucklanders believe they will, with any luck we won’t have to listen to Mr Hide blaming the Auckland Council.  He will be long gone by then.


Hide’s appointees to run Auckland Corp

Posted by Phil Twyford on August 30th, 2010

Hide and Ford

Rodney Hide’s hand picked appointees to run the new corporatised Auckland have been announced.

Apart from Sir Don McKinnon and Mayor Bob Harvey most Aucklanders won’t know who they are. And that is the point: these people will now wield enormous power over local government in Auckland but they’ve been selected in secret by the Minister, without Aucklanders having a say.

Not only did the Key-Hide Government insist on corporatising the super city against the will of Aucklanders. But Hide couldn’t wait two months and let the newly elected Auckland Council make the appointments – he had to put his own people in there.  Hide promised to consult Auckland Mayors on the appointments and then promptly broke that promise.

The appointment that sticks in the craw is that of Mark Ford. Mr Ford is a former chief executive of Watercare and chair of the Auckland Regional Transport Agency(ARTA). He is Hide’s man put in place to run the Auckland Transition Agency setting up the super city. Along with Hide he is the main architect of the over-centralised and undemocratic corporate jack up that the super city has become. He has been extraordinarily influential, at times advising Cabinet directly.

As well as setting up the super city, and overseeing the appointment process for the directors of these council owned companies, Mark Ford now has arguably the most powerful job in the whole set up. He is going to run the new mega-transport agency which will spend 54% of Aucklanders’ rates.  Transport is the area Aucklanders most want to see fixed. It’s importance cannot be over-emphasised.

Underlying the concerns about the Auckland super city has been a fear that power is being concentrated in the hands of a highly centralised bureaucracy, and corporate boards operating behind closed doors. Mark Ford is the personal embodiment of both.

I think the Auckland Council should hold US Senate-style confirmation hearings on the appointment of these board chairs. Let the newly elected Mayor and Councillors question Hide’s appointees on behalf of the people of Auckland in open session. Ask the questions their electors want asked and then decide whether these appointments should stand.


Hide wins Act loses – perfect result for centre left?

Posted by Trevor Mallard on August 21st, 2010

There will be lots of analysis over the weekend of  Act’s week.

Yet to see any acknowledement  in mainstream media (or whaleoil, penguin press or the standard) for Red Alert being the first media to foreshadow Roy’s demise. Maybe they don’t like admitting being off the pace.

The Herald has three stories. I think John Armstrong’s column is pretty good.

So Rodney Hide ends the most calamitous week in his party’s history having won (at least for the time being) the debilitating power struggle that has been consuming the Act caucus and the wider party for months.

But at dreadful cost. This is the most pyrrhic of victories – a variant on the old Vietnam war adage of having to destroy the village in order to save it.

In conspiring to oust Heather Roy from the deputy leadership, Hide may well have destroyed Act not only as a parliamentary force, but also wrecked its capacity to resurrect itself

and :-

For many members, the attraction of Act has been as the party of ideas and ideals, not personality. Or the kind of pragmatism that many members see as compromising too much in National’s favour.

At the party’s annual conference this year, both Roy and Douglas argued strongly for Act to get out of the shadow cast by National.

Hide – still weakened at the time over his scandalous use of ministerial perks – appeared to listen.

He delivered stinging criticism of National’s emissions trading scheme, National’s endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Waikato River treaty settlement.

Then he stopped

There are small stories on Act minor players. Peter Tashkoff who is 2 off being an MP confirms Hide is not a worthy leader and there is the familiar tactic of blame the staff being used to finger Roy’s advisor Simon Ewing-Jarvie.

The Dompost has a similar take. Martin Kay describes the results as toxic for Act.

The chaotic and at times bizarre handling of Mrs Roy’s dumping as ACT deputy this week was “not very tidy” in the same way the disintegration of the Alliance in 2002 could be described as “a bit messy”.

Even as the fallout over her sacking reached its most toxic, with the leaking on Wednesday of her claims of Mr Hide’s shouted abuse and stormy corridor rows

Act will now have no choice but to focus on winning Epsom – the Nats are already publicly moving to the right making it easier for Labour to win back the centre ground.

Still a way to go but thanks for your help Rodney.


Heather Roy to be sacked tomorrow

Posted by Trevor Mallard on August 16th, 2010

Usually very reliable Wellington source tells me that John Boscawen is to replace Heather Roy as Act Deputy in the morning.

Rodney’s revenge ?

Update – this mornings Herald story

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10666622


Minister of Transparency and Accountability

Posted by Phil Twyford on June 4th, 2010

Hide

In case you missed it, this Morning Report interview makes entertaining listening as Rodney Hide tries to explain to Sean Plunket that he doesn’t know how much executive redundancy payouts are going to cost the Auckland ratepayer. Or what impact Hide’s super city will have on rates.


Hide spins on super city costs – hold the front page

Posted by Phil Twyford on June 3rd, 2010

I know the claim that Rodney Hide is sowing confusion over the costs of the super city is likely to be met with a sarcastic “Hold the front page!”  but his performance at select committee this morning took his excellence in the art of spin to dizzying new heights.

The latest best estimate of super city costs is $266 million, which includes $66 million in I.T. integration that the Minister has postponed to next year. But that is today, who knows what it will be tomorrow?

A month ago, and a year after the Government began its “Auckland reforms”,  the only information in the public domain was the figure of $34 million attributed to the work of the Auckland Transition Agency.

Then the Budget papers revealed an additional crown loan to fund the transition. Not a peep from Hide, but the Herald pieced together known information and Official Information Act disclosures and put the total bill at $112 million.

Then last week Hide trumpeted in the House that he had kept costs down to $94 million, explaining in a subsequent press release that the total cost was $160 million. Strangely he omitted $40 million from his tally, including $26 million being spent on setting up the new water organisation, and $14 million spent by Councils doing transition work at the request of the Government. The Herald’s headline: Super City’s set-up costs top $200m and counting

Then at select committee officials revealed another $66 million would be spent on I.T. integration to be spent by the new Auckland Council next year.

For a year now Hide’s approach to all this has been to avoid giving any information out. Last week he obviously concluded he couldn’t do that indefinitely. So now he is re-defining major line items off the balance sheet by pretending they are not “transition costs”.

He argued at select committee this morning that the following are not transition costs: $26 million to set up the water organisation, $14 million spent by Councils on transition work at the request of the Government, and the $66 million on IT integration postponed to next year.

In any case it is all going to be paid by the Auckland ratepayer.

The next bombshell is likely to be redundancy pay outs. Dozens of senior executives are going to be made redundant. It is well known they have gold plated redundancy agreements. A well placed source in Auckland local government has told me the bill for redundancy pay outs could reach $47 million.  Hide wouldn’t confirm this, and just said any such pay outs were the business of the Councils and not his concern.


When is water privatisation not water privatisation?

Posted by Phil Twyford on April 30th, 2010

Answer: When the government says it’s not.

Water privatisation is on the agenda with the tabling in the House yesterday of Rodney Hide’s local government amendment bill.

The bill will allow private companies to own water infrastructure (dams, pipelines, treatment plans, you name it) for up to 35 years.  Although curiously the bill’s explanatory notes and the Government’s press statement explains this is not privatisation. Yeah right!

If 35 years isn’t privatisation, how long would a dam have to be in private ownership before the Government conceded it was privatisation? 50? 100? Help me out here.

The provisions are designed to encourage public private partnerships (PPPs) which internationally have become the favoured mechanism for privatisation of municipal water in recent years.  And in particular BOOT schemes (Build, Own, Operate and Transfer). The Local Government Act 2002 limits contracting out of water services to a period of 15 years and prohibits private ownership of municipal water infrastructure – both those will go under Hide’s bill.

Hide says the current provisions in the Local Government Act prohibiting the sale of Council water assets still apply. They would continue to apply to existing assets but not to new ones built under the new regime.

Alongside the desire to open up municipal water to private control, is another provision which would repeal the current obligation of councils to consult the public before contracting out public services to the private sector.

The Prime Minister stands up in Parliament and says “there is no privatisation agenda” as he did this week. But his Government is removing the democratic safeguards against privatisation of local government assets.  The other example currently before the House is the third super city bill’s repeal of the requirement for a majority approval in a binding referendum before the Ports of Auckland can be sold.

Put the privatisation and contracting out agenda alongside Key’s corporatisation of Auckland local government by handing over 75% of the city’s operations and assets to hand picked commercial boards, and it is pretty easy to see what National-ACT are doing  to local government.

The bill contains a number of other elements we’ll be considering closely in the coming days: reducing councils’ obligations to consult the community, some requirement to focus on so-called core services (although most of Hide’s nutty core services and mandatory referenda ideas did not get through Cabinet), financial transparency and pre-election reporting.  The bill could get its first reading as early as Tuesday.


Hide: super city criticism a media beat up

Posted by Phil Twyford on April 15th, 2010

Rodney Hide thinks opposition to the super city is a media beat up. From a speech to a business and investment seminar today:

One aspect of the new governance structure that has come in for some criticism, was the Auckland Transition Agency proposal for Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) under the new Auckland Council. The criticisms have been more in the mould of a political campaign run by the media, than a considered analysis of the issues, most of which have been substantially misrepresented.

Hilarious. If the Minister talked to some real Aucklanders, or read the polls, he’d know the level of discontent about his handling of the super city including the vexed issue of council-owned companies runs deep and wide.

Len Brown responded that ‘opposition to the new super-city structure is well-founded, and not simply a media campaign as claimed by Local Government Minister Rodney Hide’.

The government only has itself to blame for that and the widespread concerns. The super-city plan put forward by the Royal Commission has been substantially altered, and many in the Auckland region now fear for their local voice in the new structure.

The government has made a number of major mistakes including:

• It needed to put into legislation clear roles, functions and responsibilities for the local boards. It refuses to do so.

• It should not have legislated for council-controlled organisations. These should have been left to the new council to decide and establish.

• It should not have established a powerful transport CCO when that will be a key issue for the new Mayor and Council to grapple with.

• Having bulldozed ahead with the CCOs, the government should be giving the existing councils a say on the directors. It refuses to do so.

Failing to listen to the concerns of Aucklanders is the reason for widespread discontent – not any media campaign. Mr Hide and the government still have time to amend the third Bill on the super-city currently before Parliament. If they did so, they might find some of the opposition might lessen.


Will the Minister explain?

Posted by Phil Twyford on April 7th, 2010

Marty G at The Standard helpfully points out a $2295 -a-head conference on “Local Government Asset Management” where Local Government Minister Rodney Hide is the keynote speaker.  Later in the morning after Mr Hide’s speech is a session for which the blurb reads:

Privatisation is a contentious issue due to amendments in the Local Government Act 2002. Water will be the first area of local government which will move towards privatisation but what about the rest of local government controlled functions? What will the impacts be on asset management if more functions become commercialised in the future?

Hang on, I thought there was no privatisation agenda for local government?

That’s right, I remember.

The Government’s third super city bill repeals the requirement for a majority in a binding referendum before the Ports of Auckland can be sold.

The move to transfer 75% of the super city assets into council owned companies will exempt them from the Local Government Act requirement for public consultation before strategic assets can be sold.  So after the two year moratorium designed to ensure no asset sales before the 2011 election, a future Auckland Council could flog off the airport and ports shares without consulting the public.

The Government’s announced plans to free up the safeguards against privatisation of water will allow private ownership of water infrastructure for up to 35 years.

Maybe the Minister will use his conference speech to explain whether these moves amount to a privatisation agenda?


First Auckland, now Canterbury

Posted by Brendon Burns on March 30th, 2010

Rodney Hide has clearly won the upper hand again today with the complete rogering of Environment Canterbury, the regional council.  It is to be replaced in coming weeks by 5-7 commissioners headed by the steely veteran Dame Margaret Bazley.

Whereas the rush-job Creech review – chaired by ex Nat deputy Wyatt – suggested only taking water managment off the councillors, today’s announcement will see an end to any democratic decision-making at ECAN for the next 3 and a half years. All the councillors have been sacked, even the new chair, little known former National backbench MP Alec Neill.

Word was from sources close to Nick Smith that the Government wouldn’t go this far as Rodney had already cost the Government big-time with the similar Auckland rort of democratic decision-making.

Today’s announcement violates that fundamental principle upheld by the Right that there should be no taxation (rates) without representation. It axes a democratically-elected body without any public input for the first time at least in recent history. It forces through this bill under urgency from later this afo with no chance for Cantabrians or anyone else to comment. And while it gives the locally-driven Canterbury Water Management Strategy some status there is no legal requirement to adopt its principles . This takes place in a context where the PM has said he wants new water schemes built next year in Canterbury. Nick Smith confirmed today there is no no accompanying legislation to today’s bill to reinforce requirements to improve water quality and  environmental outcomes from that new round of water allocation.

Whatever their views on the performance of ECAN on water,  many Cantabrians believe that decisions on our water deserve to be made locally and accountably, not by Cabinet appointees .


The Herald on Act

Posted by Trevor Mallard on March 29th, 2010

Audrey Young has made it clear that the MSM will keep following up the chaos that is the Act leadership/co leadership battle.

I think the backers have got to the point where they realise that Rodney+ one or two does not give them the base they need for a real party of the right.

So pretty soon it will be go for broke and Act will live or die on the basis of it being able to be a coherent policy driven party of the right rather than a terrible mixture of irreconcilable single issues politicians led by a hypocrite former perkbuster.


How long has Rodney got?

Posted by Chris Hipkins on March 27th, 2010

I watched TV3’s new current affairs show ‘The Nation’ this morning for the first time. It follows more or less the same format as the old Agenda show. I liked it.

The second item focused on Rodney Hide and the leadership rumbles within the ACT party. The strange thing about that was the fact that Heather Roy and John Boscawen both agreed to be interviewed for it.

If ACT wanted to stop speculation about Hide’s leadership they’d stop talking about it. Instead they seem determined to keep destabilising Hide. Makes you wonder how long he’s got left…


Taxation without representation

Posted by Phil Twyford on March 24th, 2010

You have to wonder about the damage the super city fiasco is doing to National and ACT.

Both parties pride themselves on fiscal responsibility, and accountability. But with the super city they have created a monster that reflects neither principle.

The latest twist is Auckland City’s claim that the Government’s CCOs will incur tens of millions of dollars in taxes that the Auckland ratepayer will have to pick up. Bernard Orsman has the story in this morning’s Herald. Did the Government consider this when it announced its plan to corporatise 75% of Council operations in council-owned companies?

Local Government Minister Rodney Hide and Revenue Minister Peter Dunne put out a face saving statement this morning saying “no decisions have yet been made on taxation issues” for the Auckland Council, yet the third super city bill makes it clear that all of the CCOs except transport will pay tax. They go on to say while some current non-taxable activities will become taxable, tax losses will be offset against taxable income in the future. So we are going to set up a bunch of council-owned companies but we will run them at a loss to avoid paying tax?

At the very least it is another example of Hide’s rushed and shoddy process. See our exchange in question time on this. And more in the general debate.

Add to the possible tax liability a $34 million bill for consultancy fees and executive salaries at the Auckland Transition Agency, and that is only for the last few months.

And the fact that most Aucklanders believe their rates will go up as a result of the super city.  Ditto water rates.

Add to that Auckland Council’s share of the $11.5 billion Price Waterhouse Coopers reckon it will cost to fix to fix the leaky homes crisis.

The poor old Auckland ratepayer is getting well and truly stiffed. By the man who likes to refer to himself as the “Minister of Ratepayers”.  Last year Rodney Hide told an audience “…given how these Councils have been run I would be surprised if there wasn’t some ability to make savings.”  He doesn’t talk about the cost savings of the super city much these days.

But what Aucklanders find really galling about the Government’s super city is that while they are having their pockets picked, the Government is sticking masking tape over our mouths: we’ve been given no choice about the super city, the CCOs will lock us out of 75% of the Council’s operations, and the local boards won’t even have the power to make by-laws.

That is taxation without representation.


So what’s happening in ACT ?

Posted by Trevor Mallard on March 20th, 2010

Seems like the coup is on again. Might explain Hide’s weird behaviour this week.

Apparently Boscawen is to be the Hide replacement.

Interesting internal analysis of the 2009 version of the issue here.

Some wonder how bright it is for those who depend on Rodney currently for their seats in parliament to try to dump him.

Bit risky, but then maybe Douglas and Roy have decided that a party with under 5% is not what they want. That instead they want to return to the glory days of ACT being a party with principles and principals they could believe in, and one with enough size to have real influence in government.